0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information
Truthfulness, as to the existence of other parallel universes is unknowable, as judged from scientific deduction. The possibility of other universes is the product of intellectual speculation, not concrete fact.
We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information; which is subject to new knowledge.
In fact, all of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to changing opinions.
Theories, grounded upon established science is[are] fine, as far as that[they] goes[go], yet to suggest that such theories correspond to verifiable facts[,] or reality departs from any notion of valid science.
This discussion should be framed in the context of speculative science, no less, no more.
This discussion qualifies as philosophy; a point of view, grounded in a broad scientific understanding, but not concrete science.
This distinction must be made clear, if we hope to differentiate between that which is knowable, in any realistic sense, and that which is not.
Knowledge about the properties of the universe are, as all science, provisional, therefore theories as to other universes are, at best speculative, and operate within the domain of philosophical and scientific speculation.
I do not question the validity of this effort. What I do question is the framing, or lack of, regarding such issues.
The so-call[ed] rules you reference are far from complete, or well-defined.
Surely, you are not suggesting we should focus; utilize, as the bases of our theories or reasonable and logical speculations, information from pure speculation and imagination.